If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man with a gun call ends tragically?

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Police responding to a man-with-a-gun call in an upscale Long Beach neighborhood shot and killed a 35-year-old man sitting on his porch.

Investigators say Douglas Zerby, whose name was released Monday, was shot to death at about 4:40 p.m. Sunday.

A Police Department news release says officers observed a man believed to be armed with a handgun and took cover. While waiting for backup officers, the department says an officer involved shooting occurred and Zerby was killed.

Yeah, those are automated titles. There's always mistakes on them. The one saving grace is that at least they are not in S-Pan-Yol

I would think that if they were automated, their ez know ekscuse fore messpelings.

Last edited by CenTex; 12-13-2010 at 09:00 PM.

The words of a tyrant: “I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.”

Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

I would think that if they were automated, their ez know ekscuse fore messpelings.

Not to get off on a tangent here, but when one computer copies code from another, the encoding has to be the same or reasonably close or the paste will not end up exact. If you've ever tried to copy and paste some PDF excerpts you'll have seen how this plays out. I see a few hundred of these each week, and some of them are real headscratchers without reading the accompanying stories
"Golfer loses balls during errant swing at celebrity event"

It all comes down to training. Or lack of. I feel LEO in general are programed to think of officer safety as the most important thing. This and the fact that we citizens DONT protect ourselves any more. Has created a very dangerous atmosphere. One where innocent people will continue to be gunned down like dogs.

On fri my wife and I had lunch in Long Beach. I was still working so was not UOCing. Three LBPD came in to eat. I asked the three cops if they had received any training on UOC recently. One said yes maybe twice this year. Another said he would NOT recommend UOCing because when cops see a gun they ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT and if you make the slightest movement YOUR GOING TO GET SHOT! My wife and I could not believe our ears. Then on Sunday the LBPD guns down an UNARMED man on HIS OWN porch. Very sad. They heard gun and they WERE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT! He moved and THEY SHOT HIM. The cop on fri was telling the truth. Repeating what other officers say and feel.

When will more people wake up. The only way this will change is if we demand massive layoffs of this police state. AND are willing to protect ourselves. The last part is the most important. ITS OUR FAULT! We make others do what we are not willing to do.

Sorry to rant just very upset. In the end the cops will say the cops were in the right. We will never hear the true story one man dead no one will ever think about him agin.

Water nozzle

I'm sorry, but bring to bear everything I learned through the gifted program, high school AP classes, college, and post-graduate studies, my conclusion is that:

CA GOOFS YET AGAIN.

Seriously, folks, their agenda no longer has anything to do with 2A rights of self-protection, but rather, CA law rights towards being re-elected, so as to perpetuate their income as well as a retirement income should they hang on long enough to grab onto it.

*The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

OK, so he POINTED this knozzle at the cops. While that may seem less than threatening due to the nature of the object itself, it at least sets this away from mere assassination. The mindset of police training is, that if you point ANYTHING at the cops OR the general public, they may shoot. The object doesn't matter; It's the action. Point a knife, and you'll get shot; point a pipe and you'll get shot.
Several years ago, just some feet away from where I was taken to the asphalt during my slung rifle hike, a mentally different man about 60 years old, well dressed and clean, was standing on the corner at the offramp pointing his cane at cars. I was just caught up in the center of this while I was waiting for the light, and because the cops arrived with lights and sirens. The one cop behind me pulled over and drew a shotgun through his open door, and was drawing bead on the crazy guys every move. It was clearly a cane, but I could tell that the cop was ready to fire regardless. Fortunately for the crazy man, that didn't happen, but open carry or no, don't point anything...anything!

After reading the thread, my inclination was to think the cops acted precipitously. After reading the news accounts which offer more detail, specifically that neighbors said he was handling a small revolver, that he was drunk, and that he pointed the presumed weapon at one of the officers, I was less convinced that the police reacted badly. Reading more lead to conflicting reports that the police pulled up and started firing and that the took positions of cover and observed the man, waiting for backup.

The first possibility lends credence to the charge that he pointed the presumed gun at one of them. The second makes me wonder why they did not take the opportunity to tell him to drop the gun.

I'll wait for details to be firmed up on this one. I the cops arrive and a drunk immediately points what they reasonably believe to be a gun at them, they are correct to drop him. If they had any time to give him instructions, they should do so before opening fire.

I apply the same standard of self-defense to officer that I would apply to any citizen--or myself. If someone is pointing a gun at me (or if I reasonably believe that he is), I am going to shoot. Period.

The stupidest thing I have ever seen on TV is two bad guys pointing guns at each other at point-blank range, yelling, "Drop it!" and "No, you drop it!!" What's with that BS? First one who fires wins. I'm firing while he attempts to get the word "drop" out. He'll be saying "it" from the ground.

When cops or citizens find themselves with a gun (or what they reasonably believe is a gun) pointed at them, it is not unreasonable that they should fire.

Like I said, though, as far as I am concerned, the jury's out on this one. Heck, the jury still hasn't heard everything yet.

I apply the same standard of self-defense to officer that I would apply to any citizen.

I agree with what you are saying, but what stands out to me is that our justice system doesn't apply the same standards to citizens that they apply to police officers.

When something might be a gun is justification for an officer to shoot, a citizen in the officers shoes will almost certainly find themselves with much more of a burden to prove they were in fear for their life. Where an Officer may reasonably believe that what they were seeing could have been a gun, a citizen my not be held to the same standard of reason that an officer would.

I agree with what you are saying, but what stands out to me is that our justice system doesn't apply the same standards to citizens that they apply to police officers.

When something might be a gun is justification for an officer to shoot, a citizen in the officers shoes will almost certainly find themselves with much more of a burden to prove they were in fear for their life. Where an Officer may reasonably believe that what they were seeing could have been a gun, a citizen my not be held to the same standard of reason that an officer would.

He's also missing the point that a much stricter standard is supposed to be applied to LEO's. That is even recognized in Washington's laws, although like you point out the reality of this is sadly not true.

I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

If it comes before a jury that someone felt his life was in danger because of a "gun" being pointed at him and he fired on that person, claiming self-defense, the standard of justification would be the same for both LEO and non-LEO alike: did he reasonably believe that he was facing deadly force?

It just amazes me how some here would demand the above standard for an OCer involved in a shooting, but expect a higher hurdle for the LEO to justify his actions. I am in no way saying that LEOs do not have other justifications under the law. I am saying that they do not have fewer justifications or a lesser ability to justify their actions--as some here seem to be implying.

My point was (and still is) solely that LEOs may use the same justifications available to non-LEOs use when defending themselves from criminal charges due to a shooting.